kyleaugustus:$13 billion. We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.

Unfortunately, this is true to a large extent. If you don't support the industry that allows the building of these specialized weapons, you lose the capability to make them as the suppliers of materials and expertise needed to construct such complex systems disappears and moves to other projects. The real question is whether these weapons system as we know them have a long term future.

Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk. With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking. The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.

Daedalus27:Clash City Farker: We have to keep making them or we will forget how to make them.

Unfortunately, this is true to a large extent. If you don't support the industry that allows the building of these specialized weapons, you lose the capability to make them as the suppliers of materials and expertise needed to construct such complex systems disappears and moves to other projects. The real question is whether these weapons system as we know them have a long term future.

Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk. With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking. The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.

um....WW2 would like a word... pretty sure more than a few carriers were at risk... especially considering several are on the bottom of the freaking ocean.

Pubby:kyleaugustus: $13 billion. We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

Of course, if you're running the whole program to pull off a single launch, the scaling costs run up, like how the F-22 and F-35 individually become more expensive as the total number purchased decreases. If it's an on-going program at more than a halting pace, their individual price is driven down.

Pubby:kyleaugustus: $13 billion. We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

ActionJoe:The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.

Stay far enough from the coast and those small boats can't reach you. Granted it's a challenge in Hormuz, but not most places.

Daedalus27:Clash City Farker: We have to keep making them or we will forget how to make them.

Unfortunately, this is true to a large extent. If you don't support the industry that allows the building of these specialized weapons, you lose the capability to make them as the suppliers of materials and expertise needed to construct such complex systems disappears and moves to other projects. The real question is whether these weapons system as we know them have a long term future.

Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk. With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking. The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.

Um, you should stop now, back out of the thread, and contemplate your failure.

Daedalus27:Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk. With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking. The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.

The purpose of our carrier fleets is offensive in nature and is primarily for bombing the shiat out of countries who disagree with US economic policy. If shiat really hit the fan, the nuclear attack subs and ICBMs will be doing the work. (and we'll all be irradiated).

ActionJoe:The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.

A swarm of small vessels would have to be extremely lucky to do any real damage. A full US carrier group has a ton of firepower in small weapons.

Pubby:kyleaugustus: $13 billion. We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm pretty sure $13 billion wouldn't even buy the craft for the mission. Hell, we're paying $35 billion per jet fighter; and have yet to have one functional jet delivered.

ActionJoe:The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.

I recall that some president recently changed "A nuke is a gas is a germ" to "A nuke is a gas is a germ is an attack on one of our carriers".

Or in other words, attacking one of our carriers is an excuse to annihilate you and yours in a ball of nuclear flame.

iheartscotch:Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion. We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm pretty sure $13 billion wouldn't even buy the craft for the mission. Hell, we're paying $35 billion per jet fighter; and have yet to have one functional jet delivered.

/ at a mere $13 billion; a new carrier is a steal

You might have nudged a few decimal places. No single aircraft that I'm aware of costs $35 billion dollars. The B-2 is the most expensive craft per unit that I can think of and those were $737 million each but those are no longer in production. The F-35, depending on model, is between $153 million and $200 million. The F-22 is $150 million each.

I agree that the price would be high per unit/mission in a piecemeal approach. However, as with most things, the more it's done the cheaper it gets as economies of scale come into play.

kyleaugustus:iheartscotch: Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion. We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm pretty sure $13 billion wouldn't even buy the craft for the mission. Hell, we're paying $35 billion per jet fighter; and have yet to have one functional jet delivered.

/ at a mere $13 billion; a new carrier is a steal

You might have nudged a few decimal places. No single aircraft that I'm aware of costs $35 billion dollars. The B-2 is the most expensive craft per unit that I can think of and those were $737 million each but those are no longer in production. The F-35, depending on model, is between $153 million and $200 million. The F-22 is $150 million each.

I agree that the price would be high per unit/mission in a piecemeal approach. However, as with most things, the more it's done the cheaper it gets as economies of scale come into play.

MrBallou:BolshyGreatYarblocks: The Navy names a small destroyer after FDR, and a giant carrier after stumblebum; tell me again how the US military is apolitical?

Just be glad it's not named the USS Saint Ronald.

The USS Ronald Reagan is a Nimitz class carrier. It will be in service for quite some time to come.

Generally, the Navy is currently naming carriers after people who have done something particularly beneficial for the Navy. Reagan presided over a significant buildup. John Stennis was a big booster of the Navy in Congress. George HW Bush was in the Navy, as was Gerald Ford.

Now, that isn't necessarily carved into stone. Carter served in submarines, hence the last Seawolf being named after him. They will also name them after significant leaders of the us (Washington, Lincoln). But ultimately, if they think it will get a new carrier funded, they'll name it after your teddy bear if it would get them what they need to build it. So not completely apolitical... they aren't specifically political, but they aren't stupid. They'd rather have something with a name they may not enjoy than not have it at all.